43 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Plasma's and CRT's
Plasma screens give pretty good quality for their size, and don't cost too expensive, unfortunately we fell for it and bought one that isn't high definition, and we can tell that because of our high def set top box that is on a high def channel doesn't sound that great of high def yet on standard it does.
CRT TV gives always the best quality picture you can ever find and no plasma or set top or rear projections or whatever TV out there. I personally have a 21 inch CRT TV in my bedroom and I am extremely impressed with the quality it shows even though it was cheap.
reply to stevent1992 - 12/14/06 3:00 AM
I agree that a crt -or rear projection is still a better picture but that would not affect your sound. Different signal. My brother bot a new lcd and it took more than a little work to get all the signal inputs to work right on his little system.
All the digital systems use compression to allow them to send a large signal over the limited bandwidth. You can not put in the picture what is not there. So when the compression program picks one instance as the to save and throws out the very similar-but not really the same information it can not recreate the same image on your screen. What was not saved, to me is the character of the image. What makes real life, real. The nuances that that make something what it is. Digital compression makes a startlingly beautiful picture. But it is not real. It is so good because the program has save one blue and created an image with the blue looking much deeper and more solid, which looks great. But that is not the real world.
But seems we will have no option soon so I am just getting used to it.
I've always seem to like that which did not survive.
Sharp expert pad, HP Omnibook 300, Palm Zire 72, Sony Beta and Super Beta.
Expensive little toys that ended up dead ends. This time I'll wait awhile.
Plasma or LCD
I agree that a direct view CRT is still the best overall image available. Major detractor is their weight however...I have a 32" 4:3 Sony Hi-Scan 1080i T.V, bought it 5 years ago and I am still very impressed by its picture for all sources hi-def. However, Plasma and LCD are rivaling CRT displays now, and their depth and weight make them an attractive option for virtually any living space. If I had to pick one regardless of price, I think I would go LCD, I will however wait until:
1) they can producr better deeper black levels
2) they can fully resolve every detail of a 1080p signal
3) they have a response rate of better than 4ms
I prefer LCD because 1080p is great picture quality with a HD cable box and blue ray DVD. Even though I know they are suppose to be better at preventing it, the reason I wouldn't do plasma is because of potential of image burn ins, especially if you like to play games.
I know that this has been delayed, but if you have seen SED technology, which will be available within a year in sizes of 50" and up, you would agree that no other technology is as good. SED uses an array of the equivalent of thousands of transmitters arranged on the surface of the viewing area, sort of like a single DLP chip that doesn't use projection to form an image. This gives the screen very high resolution and clarity without any thickness. So a clear, high resolution image without burn in or shorter lifespan concerns in a flat panel is the result. The image quality is beter than anything I have seen. Better than plasma with higher contrast and brightmess and no ghosting or motion breakup like an LCD. It was the hit of the Consumer Electronics show last year, but delays in manufacturing has prevented it's release. It should be available to consumers through Toshiba in 2007.
SED will be best if it is ever made available
SED is my choice because of what it has in common with CRT technology. There seems to be general agreement that today the best picture quality is provided by CRT monitors. There is almost no latency and contrast ratio is the highest it can be. That is because the picture is produced by accelerated electrons hitting a phosphor screen. The drawback of current CRT monitors is their large size and weight. Some consider convergence an issue, but that is not a problem with modern CRT monitors.
The promise of SED comes from the fact that it combines the best of LCD and CRT monitors. An SED monitor will be as thin as an LCD one. Electrons are produced by a solid state process --- no filaments or other "tube" components. The electrons are than accelerated across a narrow gap until they cause phosphorescence after hitting a phosphor surface. That means they have all of the desirable characteristics of both LCD and CRT monitors without the undesirable characteristics of either.
Sounds too good to be true? Maybe. SED is under development by Canon and Toshiba. It was supposed to be out a year ago. Will it ever be released? We'll see.
on the market NOW
Hey guys & gals.....
How about we just discuss the technology that is ON THE MARKET NOW???? I think that is a good starting & ending point, for now, anyway.
sounds like your SED is like Sony's Lycos SXRD, which I have, and is the best HDTV of any kind I could find.
Dish Network, true 1080 native res. (40+ full time Hi-Def channels...)
Why buy a TV that is over priced and not the best.
It is simple TVs like the SEDs, FEDs, and NEDs are going to be hands down a vastly better picture and last longer and cheaper! Why not wait one to two years to buy a TV that is hands down a better set and get 60" for under $900? I had a TV near death and 25 years old with 420 line resolution. So got a slim CRT Tube set that is doing just fine at 34" for $650 and name brand. But the rest of the TVs will have to wait till the new twice as good dirt cheap flat screen TVs come out.
Plasma vs LCD
CRT is not really a factor here, however, it is not noted that Plasma screens are more power-hungry than are LCD screens, thus assuming that I did want a flat panel screen (which I will in the not too distant future), it will be an LCD HDTV.
Another factor that was not made clear abvout Plasma screens is the heat they produce.
In addition, I also note that though the answer was intended for recipients in the US only, I recieve PAL broadcasts, so please Barry W. of North Canton, Ohio, do get your facts correct, and remember we do not all use dollars and cents either.
I'd choose OLED if it were available
OLED - Organic Light Emitting Diodes are the next generation of display technology. Pioneered by Kodak, OLEDs require far less power than LCD or plasma, and because they are self-lighting, do not require a backlight. Displays of OLED can be manufactured at virtually any size (a real wall display) and on a flexible substrate.
I can't wait for this technology to hit the marketplace.
SED or OLED
As I understand it, the upcoming SED technology will provide all the advantages of a CRT set (negligible latency, optimal brightness, spectacular contrast) in a flat panel, 1080p package.
But then there's OLED, which I understand may be introduced in televisions in late 2007 or early 2008. It's already used for camera rear-panel viewfinders. After the manufacturers can get the screen widths up to what people will be demanding (70" will likely be the most common width in the new era; OLED TVs will start out very small but, like LCD's, eventually catch up to the others), this is likely to become the "last" format because of its many clear advantages over any other technology.
OLEDs will feature virtually zero latency, brightness that cannot be matched because you're viewing the direct light emitters, outrageous longevity, very low power consumption and, best of all, truly FLAT screens, as flat as a paper wall poster, that can be folded or rolled up into tubes. They can be designed like the movie screens we had in our elementary school classroom, retractable into a tube and you would roll them down like a window blind when you want to use them.
I want one of THOSE!
I love the look of LCOS, and since crt's are not practical in large format this is the best alternative. The color is rich and luminance has good range similar to Plasma and DLP. When you consider the LCOS having all three colors on the panel opposed to low cost DLP projectors using a single chip and a color wheel the advantage goes to LCOS. A three chip DLP might be better but the price point is cost prohibitive. The only unknown is will the LCOS image yellow over time like an LCD.
There is still a lamp to fail in some uncertain number of hours and costing at least 250.00 it is a negative for the LCOS
Plasmas Offer Best Picture Quality
Aside from CRTs which are smaller and bulkier, plasma TV's offer the best picture quality. Some of the advantages of plasma over LCD are better contrast ratios, deeper blacks and more realistic colors. The only picture advantage LCD has is that there are more 1080p sets available, which should even out in coming years. I feel picture quality is the by far the most important aspect of a TV and Plasma wins hands down vs LCD and any rear projection.
Since Money is No Object....
Wouldn't you think that the highest quality front projector (homoe theater or otherwise) would provide the best picture? The best projectors would provide higher contrast and much more brightness than any plasma currently produced, especially in a comparable size. If I had a choice and someone else's pocket book I would get the wall melter flagship from Runco ($250K).
I wanted a big screen (50") I could afford and plasma seemed to have the best picture performance for sports and DVD's. The only erious downside is the prospect of burn-in which causes me to be very careful with regard to stationary images. One would think that CNN and the other logo minded brands might have thought about their impact on Plasma by now but that's not the case. Plasma manufacturers claim that this problem has been largly rectified but I'm not taking any chances just yet. Sooooooo, the kids don't get to play with it.
A year ago I bought a CRT-RP and CRT direct view HDTVs.
A year later they still look good when I compare them to the new sets out there. Last year I spent six months looking a HDTV I looked at EVERY THING!
OK they cost far less than the other types, YES there are big, bulky and heavy, the direct view is 90lbs.
But the quality is excellent and reliability very good, both are 1080i sets.
But that was a year ago and things have changed. Today I would choose a Plasma or LCoS RP HDTV. John
The range of misinformation in the posts is indicative of the confusion in the market regarding the new HDTV standards and technologies. Rear-projection technologies provide the largest sizes, the most "inches per dollar", and the best image quality - at least in HD-ILA / LCOS technology.
According to Dr. Ray Soneira, president of the Imaging Science Foundation (ISF), LCOS and it's variants (HD-ILA, SXRD) are now the best video display technology, surpassing even CRT. JVC has been producing D-ILA and HD-ILA for over 10 years and their experience shows in picture quality and reliability.
CRT technology still has SLIGHT advantages in absolute black level and shadow detail, and while those are very important factors, the color gamut, accuracy, saturation, and lack of image degradation of HD-ILA tip the scales in favor of the newer technology. Additionally, of the currently available display technologies, none has a tighter fill ratio than HD-ILA.
At a recent tradeshow, I went into closed room with 3 HD-ILA FRONT projectors shining on the wall. Using the same imaging chip as the rear projection sets, the front projectors were making 12-14' diagonal images. Even from 1-2 feet away, it was nearly impossible to see the pixel structure. Now, imagine shrinking that down to 61" or 70"; you have a smooth, sharp image that provides the most film-like experience money can buy. Well, short of buying a film projector and buying or renting films for use in your living room.
Based either on pure performance or performance for the price, HD-ILA is the currrent hands-down winner in the display technology race.
"Other" TV Technology Is Best
Why do you want a TV to kill your brain and infect it with counterproductive racist and sexists ideas cooked up by greedy capitalists in Ho-Town (Hollywood)? The best display technology is to remove the display entirely. And to complement this, you should also remove the speakers (so you no longer hear the laugh tracks that so many TV shows have). As for the boxing matches, why do you want to see your black and brown brothers smash each other's brains out for the entertainment of whitey and the enrichment of... (can't say that word, politically incorrect, but you know who). And then there are the trailer-trash court shows, the car chase news shows (to prevent you from knowing the REAL news), the one-sided political shows. Why do I care what Oprah thinks? Do you enjoy watching the Home Shopping Network? The fake preachers who will pray for you if you send 'em money (phone number at the bottom of your screen). And think of what you could do in two hours every day (grind and polish an excellent mirror for a 13" telescope). Nah, no more TV for me. If I need to watch a DVD video, I'll do it on my computer.
DLP is the the most cost effective, but...
I vote for Digital Light Projection or DLP. While my reason for picking it is that it is a great value for money spent, DLP has the fewest vices. It is light and weight and easy to set up. There is no "screen door" effect as with the LCDs (this bugs my wife a lot). The color may not be as true as with plasma, but it can display true black. We have a 57 inch Mitsubushi set in a bright family room and can see the night scenes just fine during daylight. The biggest negative for me is the grainy image with a movie on cable. I have solved that by watching them in smaller format using the multiple display capability.
Plasma, Rear Projection LCD, DLP - pale in comparison
I just bought a 52" Sharp LCD Aquos - it's a 1080p HDTV flat panel.
I searched and searched, went to compusa, circuit city, BestBuy, fry's and on and on.
Finally, I went to Costco (for the third time) - they had a Plasma paired side by side with an LCD and there was no question. Crisper, clearer, cleaner - vivid. The plasma was dull. I was so glad to see them side-by-side.
Best of luck in your search.
Regardless of which TV you buy, make sure that you get one with "1080p" and "HDTV".
HD LCD Projector - big, vibrant and crisp, best deal so far.
What is the advantage of HDTV--a sharper picture with vibrant colors. What gets you into the action? A bigger than 100 inch display to make it life size and more realistic to display those sharper images and vibrant colors. An LCD projector on sale can give you just that for 2 to 3 grand including your sreen for 720P and 4-5 grand for 1080P. It is REAL HDTV at its finest that makes your surround sound come alive.
CRT will outlast DPL, PLASMA, LCD and all others. Just think how often have you changed the TUBE in your old CRT T.V.
Unlike Plasma and LCD, CRT Puts out no heat at all,( very little)
All the technology that applies to the rest can be apply to CRT ,
One example is the Samsung Slim Fit T.V. I own one and it beats all the rest by far. The Best Buy & Circuit city Stores here can keep up with the demand. It is true that LCD, PLASMA, DLP, are less heavy and can be placed in the ceiling and wall, but lets face it. How often do you move your T.V. around?
Pros for CRT..A Television forever...
Cons, for DLP NEED TO REPLACE THE LAMP EVERY 6,000 HOURS OR SO LAMPS CAN COST UP TO $500.00 OR MORE,and also they do not last too long.
LCD's puts out too much HEAT have a lifetime of less than 10 years ( no matter what they say )Can't play your VIDEO GAMES for too long,you are risking to burn the image on the screen.
The same goes for the PLASMA TV, This system being the WORST BY FAR, I DO NOT RECOMEND THIS SYSTEM. Gives out more heat than all the others and it's very fragile so be careful how you move it.
If you want better than LCD PLASMA DLP ( beside CRT ) try the REAR PROJECTORS THEY ARE A BETTER VALUE THAN DLP PLASMA AND LCD and will outlast DLP LCD PLASMA and the rest..( not CRT)
Plasma is DA BOMB, LCD is Next, then CRT
The Plasma is the CLEARLY the best (I know the image is synthesized, but....) while the LCD is next - since it doesn't offer as much contrast as the Plasma. CRT is good, but for the screen size, becomes too unwieldy (especially for the Wall Mount).
Plasma and LCD can be viewed from obtuse angles and still be clear, while DLP is "fuzzy" unless viewed straight on.
In Today's "small and beautiful' world, Plasma rules the Kingdom.
Space is an issue so a 32-inch LCD panel is all there's room for. It even knocks some 32-inch models out of consideration because the height exceeds 24 inches. A few NYC square inches exceeds the cost of the whole unit!
For the best picture pick one that u think is good
All this hooey about picture technology just blows me away. I have searched for years for the optimals between plasma and dlp primarily with some side trips to LCD and LCOS. I say pick what you think looks good, that you can fit into the viewing area without going wall-eyed, and that you can afford. My biggest complaint is that after I got me beautiful Hitachi 55 inch, I am no longer sattisfied with anything less than 720p and that is border line. My set up-converts as much as possible, but after you've seen 1080p on big screen, most of rest puts me in a less than tolerant mood. I'll just have to move up to Dish HD (currently regular Dish Network subscriber - so digital no big deal)
NEW TV FLAT PANEL TECHNOLOGY
I understand that the retailers are doing everything they can to unload the plasma TV's to make room for the new for 2007 Carbon tube technology, which is just about the same size as plasma, more dependable, less service, and about one half the price.
Overhead projector and media room
If money is no object, I would add on a media room and have a home theater. Premium sound, premium picture 16x9 FEET, premium seating, snack bar. If money is no object, I want it all. DLP in the den, Plasma in the master suite, LCD & CRT everywhere else.
I just bought the new 40 inch Samsung fully high-def flat screen LCD tv, and I am so impressed by the picture. There aren't that many fully hi-def channels and shows being broadcast yet, but I believe that will change soon. It can be seen from any angle without distortion. My understanding is that it should last about 15 years. The sound is great. I like that images cannot burn into the screen, as with plasma. The biggest problem I have is that it is big and it puts out much more light than my old 32 inch did, and the amount of light makes it hard to fall asleep with the tv and sleep timer on. But, I love this tv. It was so light I could lift it myself onto the top of a high piece of furniture.
CRT now, OLED "video wallpaper" when it leaves the lab
CRT has nearly a century of refinement behind it. I'll stick with it for now. I look forward to dumping tubes from my life, but TVs & illumination (Edison's filaments & Teslas flourescents) will be the last tubes to go. Of course, when they finally DO perfect OLED displays that are sold like rolls of wallpaper, the lighting problem may be solved as a serendipitous side effect. Imagine walls & ceilings that simply ...glow... when you're not actively displaying anything.
LCD Rules the Roost!
Well, Not too many of you booger picking geeks seem concerned about GLARE! Your plasmas have better pics (by a hair) BUT....living in ARIZONA demands a more practical application, one which does not show mirror glaring images and lamp and sun images like crt and plasmas do! An lcd is also a lot cooler! When it's 115* outside and the ac is going full blast, you'd appreciate your lcd as well. I used to put newspaper in my skylights to see the tv. Now I just turn on my samsung lcd hdtv and get a great no glare pic! Looks great with just a standard cable signal too! We just got 2 50" plasmas at work, and you can see behind yourself from the mirror-like glare on the screen. Common with plasmas. Get an Lcd display and you'll like it a lot better, any time of day!
Back to The CNET Lounge forum
(Page 1 of 2)